> A 'server' isn't about serving data but about securing it for 10k+ years.
If that's the case, then there are no servers in existence. I don't believe any piece of hardware that you have access to right now can maintain and serve data for the next 10K years.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
> A 'server' isn't about serving data but about securing it for 10k+ years.
Ultimately, owning stock means you own a part of the company -- that is what stock is, a share of ownership. So there is some intrinsic value (billions in cash, real estate, other assets) in the stock even if you never sold it.
But with that argument, ALL STOCK is speculation -- even those that may offer dividends. I've owned stock that promised a dividend, but then lowered it (which also devalued the stock) and ultimately cut the dividend all together.
Buying stock is a bet you're placing on a company's future success. It is just like investing in a piece of land, or in your own company, or lending money to someone with the expectation of interest boosted return.
I think one of the problems we have today is that many of these bets are very short term. We don't give much reward to those that invest longer term in a company, no offer disincentives for holding a stock for 1.3 seconds (via our tax code). That's where, IMHO, a lot of speculation comes in. If I buy stock in a company and keep it only for a minute, an hour, a day or a week, I'm not really interested in the company. But that speculation occurs with *everything*: stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, you name it.
Also realizing that unless you're doing nothing more than offering free crap, the folks using IE6 won't likely be paying customers.
Rather than denying access to a site, a better option might be to redirect them to a page explaining they using a horse & carriage product in a hybrid world and then provide links to the top 5 "modern" browsers for them to use. At some point, you either have to draw a line in the sand or waste countless man hours maintaining compatibility for an ever shrinking group.
There will come a time when we having to do that for IPv4 as well. If we cannot move on, then we'll be stuck in the past.
Testing was much more lax in LeMond's day, so he could very well have skated by. The fact that he's so quick to join the accusers makes me wonder about his motives. And his claims that some of his best friends told him (and only him) in private that they doped says that either his friends are stupid or maybe he's not being truthful.
Armstrong sued the Tour for their claims and won. He's probably the most drug tested cyclist on the tour, yet all that comes out of the Tour is innuendo and whispers because there is no evidence of him doping. The officials so desperately want to implicate him but can't, so they throw out whispers instead. Of course, Armstrong is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Tour in the last 25+ years.
I don't know whether Landis did or didn't dope. I do know the claims made (that he would massively dope on the last stage) is inconsistent with the science involved (of how steroids work) and would make Landis an absolute idiot that it leaves questions. I can say that the evidence I saw from the hearings made me question the entire testing process used. In a normal court, Landis would have been found not guilty just on the labs very questionable procedures. Of course, in the Tour "court", if you're accused of doping, you are assumed guilty and have to then prove your innocence. Even the panel's findings suggested major problems with the testing procedures, but they stayed with the guilty assumption.
I'm waiting for the Tour to have a transparent process in place for testing so that there is no doubt by the public, but they have done absolutely nothing since then.
Given the timing of this (4 years later, a few months before the next Tour), it looks like a pre-emptive attack to discredit Landis.
The Tour officials certainly played fast and loose with their labs and techniques, so it is hard to know who was right. In my eyes, they have little to no credibility.
Given the enormous consequences of their charges (and the fact that you are assumed guilty and then have to try and prove innocence), I'd like to see more disclosures of the relationship between the Tour and labs they hire and a change in process to allow for review of tests. The testing process is so secretive that it begs the question of whether the French just have a chip on their shoulders because no frenchman is winning.
Now you're creating imaginary scenarios that didn't happen. No next door neighbor complained about noise.
Also, there was not a complaint of hundreds of people streaming through the suite, so that too is imaginary.
Let's stick to what did happen rather than just making stuff up.
More like.. Viagra con convert software to hardware.
Obviously you've never attended a trade show.
There is nothing that says that Vendors have to register as vendors.
These guys are not coming up to random people saying "hey, you wanna see something cool.. just follow me." No, they may arrange a meeting at a later time, but usually with press folks they already have a relationship with and with potential business partners.
CES doesn't have a lock on what you can do on the floor as a customer. You don't sign a contract saying you will only do business with vendors that have booths to get a customer pass. And CES certainly doesn't have a right to kick you out of your hotel, period.
Um, not a free ride. If you rented a suite during CES, especially close to any of the venues, I can guarantee you paid out the ass for it.
Free ride? No way.
Now, CES a-holes didn't get their pound of flesh, but it isn't theirs to take.
Most normal people will look give you a stupid look if you ask to have in writing that you can have a business meeting in the suite you rented for the week. While I could *maybe* understand it if you had a standard room (although even then), but you rented a suite. That would be a place that has separated the bedroom from a meeting place. That seems like standard operating procedure for businessmen on the road.
No, the Venetian should get a big fat black eye for acting like thugs in what clearly looks to be a CES shakedown that probably is illegal, even in Las Vegas.
As I understand it, these were Suites. Suites as in designed to have guests, business guests.
I know lots and LOTS of business folks that rent suites to conduct business in all the time. I know other trade shows do this all the time as well, it is part of the trade show mechanism. This is typical short term thinking. If the meetings in suites prove successful, those same companies will hopefully grow big enough to need a booth next year.
Sorry, this looks like nothing more than a CES shakedown. I would definitely question the legality of CES being able to kick you out of a hotel suite for having business meetings. I could maybe understand it if you had a standard room, but if you got a suite, then IMHO, the hotel is completely in the wrong and caved to CES threatening them.
Both parties should be taken to court.
Really? Thats weird! You actually think that using a product in an unexpected but non-harmful way is immoral?
I think that what you deem as non-harmful could push Apple to take more draconian steps to insure that only its machines are running OS X (as per the licensing). That means that installs will be a bigger pain in the ass, and we could end up with the dreaded "activation" ideas as a way for Apple to protect its bottom line.
It is not unlike some software that does not check the existing network to make sure that different licenses are used. Yes, you can re-install it on different machines and get away with it. That's great if you are a single user that has two machines. But then you give the disk away to another guy and he sets up a group of people on his network with the same license. Again, because it is possible. I guess you don't find that idea harmful either.
So yeah, your desire to use it in a "non-harmful way" could ultimately hurt the entire Mac community.
Worse though, you have the nerve to bitch about Apple locking out hardware support for something they never officially supported anyway.
the full "non-upgrade" version also *requires* a Macintosh. It is still an upgrade to the original OS that came with your Macintosh. It is much like when you buy a program a week before it is upgraded, often the company will give you the upgrade at a steep discount. That does not mean the other options are not upgrades, just that you got a special deal. Leopard folks got a special upgrade deal of $29. Non-leopard folks can upgrade for whatever that cost is. It is all still an upgrade.
Since they have never supported Atom processor officially as a Mac product, they have no obligation to let it run on that platform.
You call it a dick move, I call it a business decision. Perhaps they decided that too many folks were buying netbooks and inappropriately installing OS X on them. Since they are primarily a hardware company, they might be concerned that folks may actually think it is Apple's hardware and see the company in a bad light if any problems occur. Or they might be getting a lot of support calls from people that had a netbook setup for them with a hackintosh but then start having problems.
If they decided, for business or technically reasons, that it was a bad idea to support that processor, they can kill it. Whether it is protecting your imagine, or keeping support costs down (or both), there are lots of reasons why this is perfectly valid decision on their part.
Personally, I think it's a dick move to think you can install OS X on any machine when the company creating the OS specifically has stated that it is for their hardware. And just because it is possible, does not make it moral.
You are under the false notion that Apple's $29 Snow Leopard upgrade is the same thing as buying a full retail copy of Windows (or any other full retail OS product) that runs on indiscriminate hardware. It is not and never has been. The box for Snow Leopard says that it requires a Macintosh (that's hardware.. or "the car" for your analogy). This has always been the case, even if you are unwilling to actually read the requirements and accept them.
Just because you can currently circumvent the requirement Apple has on its software does not put you on high-moral grounds, nor does it obligate Apple to support your actions in any form what so ever.
OS X 10.6.2 continues to run on every Macintosh that Apple said would run OS X 10.6. Just because you found a way to circumvent it does not obligate Apple to support your move in any way. Sue all you want, you will lose.
Sadly, you may ruin it for the rest of us as Apple may have to start taking Windows 7 like steps to guarantee people are running on legitimate hardware.